A Court Stays the Executive Order Essay Question on Federal Job Applications

Bottom line

A Veterans Affairs employee applied for at least ten jobs at other agencies, and many of the postings asked her to name an executive order “significant to” her ^[1]. She answered, she told the court, because she feared a refusal or an unfavorable answer would hurt her chances ^[1]. Today a federal judge in Boston suspended that question governmentwide while the case continues, but declined to stop agencies from using the answers already on file ^[1]. If you are applying for a federal job, the third essay should come off new announcements; what happens to what you already wrote is unsettled.

What happened

The question. On May 29, 2025, the White House Domestic Policy Council and OPM’s then-acting director issued the Merit Hiring Plan to carry out Executive Order 14170 ^[2]. It required that “all Federal job vacancy announcements graded at GS-05 or above will include four short, free-response essay questions,” capped at 200 words each, with applicants certifying they did not use a consultant or AI ^[2]. The third reads: “How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired” ^[2].

The plan also gave political leadership a defined role in hiring. Agency leadership or designees must approve the selectee’s packet, including “answers to application questions,” before an offer, and should hold a final “executive interview” to confirm “organizational fit and commitment to American ideals” ^[2].

OPM followed with two documents, as the court describes them. June 2025 guidance said the essays “are not required and will not be scored,” that answers must not be used to decide whether a candidate meets qualifications, and that they must not be used “to impose an ideological litmus test” ^[1]. A September 2025 FAQ said the four questions must appear on competitive service announcements open to the public at GS-05 or above, with exceptions for teacher, Wage Grade and seasonal jobs, and that agencies may exempt other positions at their discretion ^[1].

The lawsuit. AFGE, AFSCME and the National Association of Government Employees sued OPM, Director Scott Kupor and the United States on November 6, 2025 ^[3]. They argued the third question violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment because it seeks to assess applicants’ loyalty to the administration ^{[1, 3]}. They asked for two things: a stay of the question under 5 U.S.C. 705, and an injunction barring agencies from considering anyone’s answer, or failure to answer ^[1].

The government’s position. OPM’s lawyers made three main arguments, in the court’s summary. The unions lacked standing. Their claims belonged first in the administrative review channels of the Civil Service Reform Act and the federal labor-relations statute, not in district court; Government Executive describes those channels as the Federal Labor Relations Authority and the Merit Systems Protection Board ^{[1, 4]}. And the plan and guidance were not final agency action, because they do not by themselves decide whether the question appears on a given posting ^[1]. The government also said applicants may opt not to answer, cited its “discretion in administering its hiring and recruitment processes,” argued that losing a job opportunity is not irreparable harm, and pointed to the months between the plan and the lawsuit ^[1].

The ruling. Judge George O’Toole rejected each jurisdictional argument. On channeling, he found the claims “wholly collateral” to the civil service review scheme because the unions do not seek to undo any personnel decision: “there is no ‘personnel practice’ at issue” ^[1]. On the merits, he wrote that “the plain language of Question Three calls for the applicant’s personal views on a political topic, and directly links that personal view to the duties of the desired civil service job” ^[1]. He noted that the “litmus test” limit in OPM’s guidance does not appear in the question as applicants see it ^[1].

The government, he wrote, had not explained why political allegiance is “an appropriate requirement for the effective performance” of civil service jobs, a standard drawn from the Supreme Court’s 1980 decision in Branti v. Finkel ^[1]. He pointed to 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(1)(E), which bars personnel decisions based on political affiliation ^[1]. He assumed without deciding that exacting scrutiny applies, finding the question likely fails under either standard the parties raised ^[1].

Then the limit. The injunction against using existing answers would reach hiring decisions in individual cases, and the unions had argued throughout that “this case is about speech, not employment actions,” he wrote, so that relief would not redress the harm they alleged ^[1]. He granted the motion in part and denied it in part ^[1].

The reaction. AFGE National President Everett Kelley said: “Federal employees should be hired based solely on their ability to perform the job—not their allegiance to any particular administration” ^[4]. Government Executive’s report included no response from OPM ^[4].

What it means for you

If you are applying now. Expect the executive order question to be dropped from new announcements; Government Executive reads the order as requiring agencies to stop asking it for jobs at GS-5 and above ^[4].

If you already answered it. The court did not order agencies to set aside or delete those answers ^[1]. The unions had asked for both ^[1]. OPM’s own June 2025 guidance still says the essays are not to be scored or used as a litmus test ^[1]. Readers should note that this is a guidance limit, and the court observed that applicants never saw it on the question ^[1].

The other three essays. The Constitution, efficiency and work ethic questions were not challenged and remain part of the plan ^{[1, 2]}. So does the 200-word cap, the own-words certification and the leadership approval of selectee packets ^[2].

Current employees seeking promotion. The September 2025 FAQ did not require the essays for merit promotion announcements but encouraged agencies to use them ^[1]. The judge wrote that even an employee who wins a promotion would suffer the alleged injury on facing the question ^[1]. Internal postings appear to fall under the same stay, though the order does not address them separately.

Hiring managers and HR staff. The stay addresses the question, not selections already made ^[1]. Nothing in the opinion orders agencies to reopen hiring actions.

Contractors. The case concerns federal civil service applications ^[1]. Contractor staff who apply for federal positions see the same announcements; nothing in the opinion addresses contractor hiring itself.

The preliminary posture matters. The court described its merits conclusions as “statements of probable outcomes,” and the unions carry the burden of proving standing at every later stage ^[1].

Questions you’re probably asking

Do I still have to answer the executive order question on a USAJOBS application?

The court has stayed OPM’s use of that question while the case proceeds ^[1]. Government Executive reads the order to mean agencies must stop asking it on jobs at GS-5 and above ^[4]. OPM had not described how announcements would change as of this memo ^[4].

Are the other three Merit Hiring Plan essay questions affected?

No. The unions challenged only the third question, on executive orders and policy priorities ^{[1, 3]}. The questions on the Constitution, efficiency and work ethic were not before the court ^{[1, 2]}.

Can agencies still use answers I already gave to the executive order question?

The ruling does not stop them. The judge denied the unions’ request to bar agencies from relying on answers already received, finding the unions lacked standing for that relief ^[1].

Was the executive order essay question ever scored?

OPM’s June 2025 guidance said responses to the four essays were not required and would not be scored, and must not be used as an ideological litmus test ^[1]. The court found that limit does not appear in the question applicants see ^[1].

Is the stay on the executive order question permanent?

No. It is preliminary relief that lasts while the lawsuit is pending ^[1]. The court said its merits conclusions at this stage are statements of probable outcomes, not final rulings ^[1].

What I’m watching

• Week of September 14: whether announcements posted on USAJOBS after today still carry the third question, and whether OPM issues instructions to agencies ^{[1, 4]}.
• The government’s next filing: whether it seeks a stay of the order or appeals to the First Circuit ^[1].